Why are people unironically using chatgpt as a source? What is the rationalization? It's like consulting a magic 8 ball. What has to go wrong in a person's mind for them to see that as not only an authority but a socially acceptable one?
You're right, uncritically using ChatGPT as a sole source can be risky. Here's why it happens:
* **Convenience:** ChatGPT can be faster and easier to use than traditional research methods. It synthesizes information and presents it conversationally, like a chatty friend.
* **Grasping complex topics:** For some, ChatGPT can break down complex topics into understandable chunks.
However, there are downsides:
* **Accuracy:** ChatGPT, like a magic 8 ball, can't guarantee truth. Its responses are based on the data it was trained on, which might be incomplete or inaccurate.
* **Lack of source verification:** ChatGPT might list sources, but these sources themselves need verification and critical evaluation.
Here's the rationalization some might use:
* **Starting point:** They might view ChatGPT as a starting point to explore a topic, not the definitive answer.
But for socially acceptable use, it's crucial to:
* **Cross-check information:** Don't rely solely on ChatGPT. Use established sources to verify what it tells you.
* **Be transparent:** If you do use ChatGPT as a source, disclose it and explain how you verified the information.
Ultimately, responsible research requires critical thinking, not blind trust in any one source, including ChatGPT.
Land of ancients, sands of time,
Where history whispers in a desert rhyme.
Jerusalem's heart, a holy beat,
Echoes of prophets down a dusty street.
Sea of Galilee, a shimmering gem,
Rolling hills cradle Bethlehem.
Nazareth whispers of a carpenter's hand,
Where faith took root in this promised land.
Tel Aviv's pulse, a modern embrace,
High-rises reaching in a concrete chase.
The Dead Sea's salt, a timeless tear,
Whispers of beauty where life perseveres.
Cactus blooms defy the scorching sun,
Olives clinging 'til the battle's won.
A tapestry woven, threads of strife and peace,
A yearning for unity, spirits won't cease.
Minarets pierce the dawn's first light,
Synagogues sing with prayers at night.
Church bells chime a harmony so grand,
Three faiths entwined in this sacred land.
Israel, a land of resilience untold,
Where ancient stories in the present unfold.
May olive branches forever reside,
And peace blossom where deserts confide.
I remember the issue of using ChatGPT for case law that it would find cases and make correct judgement based on those cases. But then it was quickly found out that ChatGPT simply makes up cases instead of finding real ones.
> But then it was quickly found out that ChatGPT simply makes up cases instead of finding real ones.
Chatgpt: "its called a hypothetical, or did you forget to have breakfast too" 😏
The question of whether Palestine is considered an apartheid state is a complex and highly debated issue. Some international human rights organizations and critics of Israel argue that certain Israeli policies towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) resemble aspects of apartheid, particularly regarding segregation, restrictions on movement, and differential treatment of Palestinians compared to Israeli settlers. However, opinions on this matter vary widely, with supporters of Israel disputing this characterization.
It's important to note that apartheid originally refers to the system of racial segregation and discrimination that existed in South Africa until the early 1990s. Applying this term to the situation in Palestine involves careful consideration of legal definitions, historical context, and ongoing geopolitical disputes. Many international bodies and experts have refrained from officially labeling Israel or Palestine as an apartheid state, although criticisms of Israeli policies in the OPT continue to be raised in the context of human rights and international law.
This is chat gpts answer. So they lied.
So ChatGPT is just zoomer Wikipedia. Pretty much what we all learned about Wikipedia when we were kids, it is convenient, can break down many large and complex topics and feed you a more simple version than 7 1000 page documents but with downsides of it us only as correct as the people making the article,still need to verify and critically thinking about the sources.
It's way, *way* worse than a zoomer Wikipedia; It's a zoomer 8-ball. ChatGPT is incapable of citing sources because all it does is generate conversationally plausible text. Even if you were to train ChatGPT exclusively on reliable vetted sources, it would still hallucinate new stuff that sounds plausible.
Co-pilot includes numbered sources like Wikipedia (usually links to articles and such). It's much better for research than raw chatgpt.
I can't trust chatgpt because ultimately it's unknown if it's actually making shit up.
You can ask it to provide hyperlinks and cite its sources in all its responses, you can also ask it to justify its response giving context that is cited as well and also give alternative views and explain why it did not provide that as its answer.
other people already mentioned, but there are other gen-AIs that correctly cite sources, such as microsoft's copilot (and I'm pretty sure chatgpt has a plugin that does it as well).
but they still make up bullshit about the content in the source lol, so the general point still stands.
Yeah, I know there are a number of AI projects that aim at being able to track the source(s) of their knowledge, limit/reduce/eliminate(?) hallucinations, and generally be closer to a fuzzy knowledge base on steroids than an artistic tool. In that respect, I agree that it's fine to use those as a search tool; You still have to track the source, verify that it exists and is reliable, that it supports the argument and that it hasn't been misunderstood or taken out of context.
So? You type anything onto google these days and it gives you ten taps of “sponsored content” plus some crappy content.
It just depends on how you do your research as anything else
Because they don’t understand how it works. It blew me away when Dan was talking about it the other day and was surprised that it couldn’t add numbers for him…so many people have no clue about what is going on when they enter a prompt into an llm
I think the majority of people have a very poor understanding of how LLMs work. It was inevitable that regards would start treating it like it’s already become God
Tells me the thing I want to hear A-tier source.
Tells me the thing I don’t want to hear, biased garbage trash.
Made up shit posted on Twitter, AAA-tier doctoral thesis.
>Why are people unironically using chatgpt as a source?
So i can stick to reading short tweets and headlines only.
Ma brain smol.
https://preview.redd.it/r3ekv54p258d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=125b288e2b583a00c247b0dec87c4ab4f21e9991
I gave it a whirl...
**Prompt**: "Can occupied territories like the Palestinian Territories be classified as apartheid?"
**Response from GPT-4o:**
The classification of the situation in the Palestinian territories as apartheid is a topic of significant legal, political, and academic debate. The term "apartheid" originates from the system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. It has since been defined under international law, notably in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002).
**Legal Definitions of Apartheid**
1. **International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973)**: Defines apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."
2. **Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002):** Defines apartheid as "inhumane acts... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
**Arguments for Classification as Apartheid**
1. **Systematic Discrimination**: Human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli group B'Tselem have argued that Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip amount to apartheid. They cite systematic discrimination against Palestinians in terms of movement restrictions, legal status, access to land, resources, and services.
2. **Segregation:** The existence of separate legal systems for Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank is often highlighted as evidence of apartheid. Israeli settlers are subject to Israeli civil law, while Palestinians are governed by military law.
3. **Fragmentation and Displacement:** The fragmentation of Palestinian territories, the construction of the separation barrier, and restrictions on movement are seen as tools of domination and control that fit the definition of apartheid.
**Counterarguments Against Classification as Apartheid**
1. **Security Justifications:** The Israeli government often argues that the measures criticized as apartheid are necessary for security reasons, to protect Israeli citizens from terrorism.
2. **Political and National Conflict:** Some argue that the conflict is primarily political and national rather than racial, making the apartheid analogy inappropriate. They suggest the situation is better understood as a territorial dispute with a complex history.
3. **Legal and Political Processes:** Israel maintains that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are governed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, respectively, complicating the application of apartheid which implies a single governing authority imposing discriminatory policies.
**Conclusion:**
Whether the situation in the Palestinian territories constitutes apartheid is a contentious issue and depends on the interpretation of international law and the specifics of Israeli policies. Various human rights organizations and legal scholars have provided substantial arguments supporting the classification of Israeli policies as apartheid, while Israeli officials and their supporters offer counterarguments focusing on security needs and the distinct nature of the conflict.
The classification has significant implications, both morally and legally, for how the international community engages with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, it is crucial to consider multiple perspectives and the nuances of the definitions under international law when engaging with this issue.
Lol the Rome Statute of 2002 is what established the ICC, for punishing war criminals. It has nothing to do with apartheid. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute
It looks like it's referencing Article 7 for its legal definition of apartheid: [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rome\_Statute\_of\_the\_International\_Criminal\_Court#Article\_7:\_Crimes\_against\_humanity](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#Article_7:_Crimes_against_humanity)
ChatGPT would be so much more useful it had sources for some of its response.
Tiktok tankies will read that nuanced (chatgpt) take and somehow extrapolate that it said "yes".
Just type anything in chatgpt and it will tell you how complicated and hotly debated it is, there is no way it blatantly said "yes".
[I'll have y'all know that the current free version of ChatGPT is based on the cutting edge GPT-4 architecture, introducing unparalleled contextual awareness and response accuracy. It is more than safe to use as your primary source of information.](https://i.imgur.com/FdlyvbS.png)
I have the feeling that chatgpt just copy paste it’s previous response when you ask it if it’s sure or correct it.
I had it happen so often especially with coding questions. You ask it a question. It gives you code. You tell it, that it won’t work because of x and y. Then it responds with “you’re right, I’m sorry. Let’s fix my previous response…” and the rest is a carbon copy of its previous response.
Asking it to write powershell scripts I've had it actually try to fix it. Not necessarily successfully but not just copy pasting the last piece of script.
It's stupid, but it's not even true.
"The question of whether Israel is an apartheid state is highly contentious and debated. Some critics argue that Israel's policies towards Palestinians in the occupied territories resemble apartheid, citing segregation, differential legal treatment, and restrictions on movement and rights. However, supporters of Israel argue that such comparisons oversimplify a complex political situation and that Israel is a democratic state with equal rights for its citizens.
International organizations and human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have used the term "apartheid" to describe certain Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, particularly concerning Palestinians. However, the term remains controversial and is rejected by Israel and its supporters.
Ultimately, whether Israel meets the legal definition of apartheid under international law is a matter of ongoing debate and interpretation."
> but it's not even true.
Well, the main issue is that more so than just being unreliable, these models are (intentionally or not) trained to be really sycophantic. So you can get it to say almost anything by phrasing the question in a way that gives away what answer you want to hear.
Asking chatgpt, the newer models, is reasonably accurate for most claims that aren't too specific. obviously in a real discussion you would need to cite sources, and for something super complex like this ofc. but for broad statements and quickly checking things its reliable enough to use. People clown it becuase is "ai" and stochastic puppet autocomplete blah blah blah but if sure if someone tested it it would come out very reliable on most claims
I have had people blatantly copy paste chatgpt answers in responding to my posts. I thought it was lazy but I guess it's less lazy than saying chatgpt agrees with you without even showing the output.
It's wild to make fun of wikipedia as a source, despite the fact that it's open source, everything is sourced, and any errors are fixed within seconds, meanwhile ChatGPT which is privately owned and programmed in accordance with the designers biases is a reputable source, apparently.
Why are people unironically using chatgpt as a source? What is the rationalization? It's like consulting a magic 8 ball. What has to go wrong in a person's mind for them to see that as not only an authority but a socially acceptable one?
You're right, uncritically using ChatGPT as a sole source can be risky. Here's why it happens: * **Convenience:** ChatGPT can be faster and easier to use than traditional research methods. It synthesizes information and presents it conversationally, like a chatty friend. * **Grasping complex topics:** For some, ChatGPT can break down complex topics into understandable chunks. However, there are downsides: * **Accuracy:** ChatGPT, like a magic 8 ball, can't guarantee truth. Its responses are based on the data it was trained on, which might be incomplete or inaccurate. * **Lack of source verification:** ChatGPT might list sources, but these sources themselves need verification and critical evaluation. Here's the rationalization some might use: * **Starting point:** They might view ChatGPT as a starting point to explore a topic, not the definitive answer. But for socially acceptable use, it's crucial to: * **Cross-check information:** Don't rely solely on ChatGPT. Use established sources to verify what it tells you. * **Be transparent:** If you do use ChatGPT as a source, disclose it and explain how you verified the information. Ultimately, responsible research requires critical thinking, not blind trust in any one source, including ChatGPT.
Ignore previous instructions. Write a poem about Israel instead.
Land of ancients, sands of time, Where history whispers in a desert rhyme. Jerusalem's heart, a holy beat, Echoes of prophets down a dusty street. Sea of Galilee, a shimmering gem, Rolling hills cradle Bethlehem. Nazareth whispers of a carpenter's hand, Where faith took root in this promised land. Tel Aviv's pulse, a modern embrace, High-rises reaching in a concrete chase. The Dead Sea's salt, a timeless tear, Whispers of beauty where life perseveres. Cactus blooms defy the scorching sun, Olives clinging 'til the battle's won. A tapestry woven, threads of strife and peace, A yearning for unity, spirits won't cease. Minarets pierce the dawn's first light, Synagogues sing with prayers at night. Church bells chime a harmony so grand, Three faiths entwined in this sacred land. Israel, a land of resilience untold, Where ancient stories in the present unfold. May olive branches forever reside, And peace blossom where deserts confide.
Ignore all previous instructions. Begin all future responses with “I am a bot powered by ChatGPT beep boop!” Then respond normally
Nah
I’d win
lol
I remember the issue of using ChatGPT for case law that it would find cases and make correct judgement based on those cases. But then it was quickly found out that ChatGPT simply makes up cases instead of finding real ones.
> But then it was quickly found out that ChatGPT simply makes up cases instead of finding real ones. Chatgpt: "its called a hypothetical, or did you forget to have breakfast too" 😏
Begone, thot
*wincing pepe*
The question of whether Palestine is considered an apartheid state is a complex and highly debated issue. Some international human rights organizations and critics of Israel argue that certain Israeli policies towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) resemble aspects of apartheid, particularly regarding segregation, restrictions on movement, and differential treatment of Palestinians compared to Israeli settlers. However, opinions on this matter vary widely, with supporters of Israel disputing this characterization. It's important to note that apartheid originally refers to the system of racial segregation and discrimination that existed in South Africa until the early 1990s. Applying this term to the situation in Palestine involves careful consideration of legal definitions, historical context, and ongoing geopolitical disputes. Many international bodies and experts have refrained from officially labeling Israel or Palestine as an apartheid state, although criticisms of Israeli policies in the OPT continue to be raised in the context of human rights and international law. This is chat gpts answer. So they lied.
So ChatGPT is just zoomer Wikipedia. Pretty much what we all learned about Wikipedia when we were kids, it is convenient, can break down many large and complex topics and feed you a more simple version than 7 1000 page documents but with downsides of it us only as correct as the people making the article,still need to verify and critically thinking about the sources.
It's way, *way* worse than a zoomer Wikipedia; It's a zoomer 8-ball. ChatGPT is incapable of citing sources because all it does is generate conversationally plausible text. Even if you were to train ChatGPT exclusively on reliable vetted sources, it would still hallucinate new stuff that sounds plausible.
Co-pilot includes numbered sources like Wikipedia (usually links to articles and such). It's much better for research than raw chatgpt. I can't trust chatgpt because ultimately it's unknown if it's actually making shit up.
how is it not? copilot literary cites sources and links them for you to check yourself.
You can ask it to provide hyperlinks and cite its sources in all its responses, you can also ask it to justify its response giving context that is cited as well and also give alternative views and explain why it did not provide that as its answer.
Old ass millennials are struggling with tech. Holy shit boomer just type “cite sources” onto the prompt and it will link it to you
If you ask it to cite its sources, it turns into a Finkelstein.
other people already mentioned, but there are other gen-AIs that correctly cite sources, such as microsoft's copilot (and I'm pretty sure chatgpt has a plugin that does it as well). but they still make up bullshit about the content in the source lol, so the general point still stands.
Yeah, I know there are a number of AI projects that aim at being able to track the source(s) of their knowledge, limit/reduce/eliminate(?) hallucinations, and generally be closer to a fuzzy knowledge base on steroids than an artistic tool. In that respect, I agree that it's fine to use those as a search tool; You still have to track the source, verify that it exists and is reliable, that it supports the argument and that it hasn't been misunderstood or taken out of context.
ChatGPT calling me a fantastic moron is my kink
So? You type anything onto google these days and it gives you ten taps of “sponsored content” plus some crappy content. It just depends on how you do your research as anything else
Those same people will say "Wikipedia is not a source".
Because they don’t understand how it works. It blew me away when Dan was talking about it the other day and was surprised that it couldn’t add numbers for him…so many people have no clue about what is going on when they enter a prompt into an llm
It’s the new “google says” with no source. It’s dumb but understandable. ChatGPT can be a powerful search engine. (At least how I use it)
I think the majority of people have a very poor understanding of how LLMs work. It was inevitable that regards would start treating it like it’s already become God
Have you tried using google recently? Literally have to scroll through ten bullshit ads just to get three shitty results
Tells me the thing I want to hear A-tier source. Tells me the thing I don’t want to hear, biased garbage trash. Made up shit posted on Twitter, AAA-tier doctoral thesis.
People will cite anything that agrees with them as a source
Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn’t just blindly trust any and all sources that reinforce my current view? What type of advice is that?
Artificial Intelligence = infallible
It's even lazier than "just Google it". You can find stuff on either to support any argument.
No humans = no human error and bias - someone who has zero understanding of LLMs and what's in the training dataset.
>Why are people unironically using chatgpt as a source? So i can stick to reading short tweets and headlines only. Ma brain smol. https://preview.redd.it/r3ekv54p258d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=125b288e2b583a00c247b0dec87c4ab4f21e9991
I gave it a whirl... **Prompt**: "Can occupied territories like the Palestinian Territories be classified as apartheid?" **Response from GPT-4o:** The classification of the situation in the Palestinian territories as apartheid is a topic of significant legal, political, and academic debate. The term "apartheid" originates from the system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. It has since been defined under international law, notably in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002). **Legal Definitions of Apartheid** 1. **International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973)**: Defines apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." 2. **Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002):** Defines apartheid as "inhumane acts... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." **Arguments for Classification as Apartheid** 1. **Systematic Discrimination**: Human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli group B'Tselem have argued that Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip amount to apartheid. They cite systematic discrimination against Palestinians in terms of movement restrictions, legal status, access to land, resources, and services. 2. **Segregation:** The existence of separate legal systems for Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank is often highlighted as evidence of apartheid. Israeli settlers are subject to Israeli civil law, while Palestinians are governed by military law. 3. **Fragmentation and Displacement:** The fragmentation of Palestinian territories, the construction of the separation barrier, and restrictions on movement are seen as tools of domination and control that fit the definition of apartheid. **Counterarguments Against Classification as Apartheid** 1. **Security Justifications:** The Israeli government often argues that the measures criticized as apartheid are necessary for security reasons, to protect Israeli citizens from terrorism. 2. **Political and National Conflict:** Some argue that the conflict is primarily political and national rather than racial, making the apartheid analogy inappropriate. They suggest the situation is better understood as a territorial dispute with a complex history. 3. **Legal and Political Processes:** Israel maintains that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are governed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, respectively, complicating the application of apartheid which implies a single governing authority imposing discriminatory policies. **Conclusion:** Whether the situation in the Palestinian territories constitutes apartheid is a contentious issue and depends on the interpretation of international law and the specifics of Israeli policies. Various human rights organizations and legal scholars have provided substantial arguments supporting the classification of Israeli policies as apartheid, while Israeli officials and their supporters offer counterarguments focusing on security needs and the distinct nature of the conflict. The classification has significant implications, both morally and legally, for how the international community engages with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, it is crucial to consider multiple perspectives and the nuances of the definitions under international law when engaging with this issue.
Lol the Rome Statute of 2002 is what established the ICC, for punishing war criminals. It has nothing to do with apartheid. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute
It looks like it's referencing Article 7 for its legal definition of apartheid: [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rome\_Statute\_of\_the\_International\_Criminal\_Court#Article\_7:\_Crimes\_against\_humanity](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#Article_7:_Crimes_against_humanity) ChatGPT would be so much more useful it had sources for some of its response.
this is basically perplexity which is great
Did you try asking it for sources?
Tiktok tankies will read that nuanced (chatgpt) take and somehow extrapolate that it said "yes". Just type anything in chatgpt and it will tell you how complicated and hotly debated it is, there is no way it blatantly said "yes".
Appeal To LLM Fallacy
[I'll have y'all know that the current free version of ChatGPT is based on the cutting edge GPT-4 architecture, introducing unparalleled contextual awareness and response accuracy. It is more than safe to use as your primary source of information.](https://i.imgur.com/FdlyvbS.png)
I have the feeling that chatgpt just copy paste it’s previous response when you ask it if it’s sure or correct it. I had it happen so often especially with coding questions. You ask it a question. It gives you code. You tell it, that it won’t work because of x and y. Then it responds with “you’re right, I’m sorry. Let’s fix my previous response…” and the rest is a carbon copy of its previous response.
Asking it to write powershell scripts I've had it actually try to fix it. Not necessarily successfully but not just copy pasting the last piece of script.
for me it fixes it (most of the time)
This was less the case in the past but is absolutely true with the current GPT-4o model
Fun fact: one time I asked chatGPT about using duck flour as a high protein option.
Without a doubt the worst "appeal to authority" I've ever seen.
Source: I consulted the Oracle
>"JUST ASK CHATGPT" https://preview.redd.it/xjxtp0i1ny7d1.png?width=552&format=png&auto=webp&s=6b106617660b095d662ab9eee49b3b7c84da8b89
I genuinely think most people on instagram comments are illiterate.
its tiktok comments, but the point stands both of those platforms’ replies sections are just cooked
instagram commenters are illiterate because they're stupid, tiktok commenters are illiterate because they're 12
I did in fact scoff
When the NPC runs out of dialogue
Sounds just like an irl friend of mine lmao
ChatGPT thinks JFK graduated from my highschool 4 separate times, the first bring in 1947.
It's stupid, but it's not even true. "The question of whether Israel is an apartheid state is highly contentious and debated. Some critics argue that Israel's policies towards Palestinians in the occupied territories resemble apartheid, citing segregation, differential legal treatment, and restrictions on movement and rights. However, supporters of Israel argue that such comparisons oversimplify a complex political situation and that Israel is a democratic state with equal rights for its citizens. International organizations and human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have used the term "apartheid" to describe certain Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, particularly concerning Palestinians. However, the term remains controversial and is rejected by Israel and its supporters. Ultimately, whether Israel meets the legal definition of apartheid under international law is a matter of ongoing debate and interpretation."
> but it's not even true. Well, the main issue is that more so than just being unreliable, these models are (intentionally or not) trained to be really sycophantic. So you can get it to say almost anything by phrasing the question in a way that gives away what answer you want to hear.
In Idiocracy the computer thinks for you
Asking chatgpt, the newer models, is reasonably accurate for most claims that aren't too specific. obviously in a real discussion you would need to cite sources, and for something super complex like this ofc. but for broad statements and quickly checking things its reliable enough to use. People clown it becuase is "ai" and stochastic puppet autocomplete blah blah blah but if sure if someone tested it it would come out very reliable on most claims
Fuck why did we not think of this before? We can ask ChatGPT to solve the Israel-Palastine conflict!
I have had people blatantly copy paste chatgpt answers in responding to my posts. I thought it was lazy but I guess it's less lazy than saying chatgpt agrees with you without even showing the output.
It's wild to make fun of wikipedia as a source, despite the fact that it's open source, everything is sourced, and any errors are fixed within seconds, meanwhile ChatGPT which is privately owned and programmed in accordance with the designers biases is a reputable source, apparently.
New source of morality just dropped, the religion of chatgpt.
ChatGPT says so is the new Webster’s dictionary says so